Very few countries in the world have had a political history as stable as the USA’s over the last couple of centuries. Take France, which since 1788 has had: an absolute monarchy, three revolutionary regimes, a constitutional monarchy, two imperial regimes, a bout of full-on fascism, and five separate republican constitutions. At most of the junctures between those things, there was suffering and bloodshed. Maybe people “don’t give a fuck about the US constitution” - it certainly looks like Americans don’t, these days - but the stability of American democratic politics is genuinely very unusual and the constitution obviously has something to do with that.
As for your take on populism in the world, I am not as nonchalant as you. Yes, the rot has been stopped in some places, for now (Brazil, Poland, partly India) but in general it is still very much on the march. India, Turkey, Philippines, Hungary (which is right inside the EU - and now Slovakia too), El Salvador, Mexico, Tunisia, etc. The Arab world is less democratic than ever. And of course China is once again going full dictatorship only a few decades after discovering what a bad idea that is with Mao. Personally I doubt that China is much influenced by US politics, but pretty much everyone else in the world is. And most of this happened quite neatly during the period following Trump’s first election. Whether it is mostly cause or correlation, the link is there.
You cannot compare newly-formed countries with those that have CENTURIES of history behind them, and their own geopolitical goals over that time. The point still stands that no one outside of the US cares about their constitution or political system, and to say it does shows an incredible level of ignorance of world politics outside of US borders. Even countries like Australia with their own constitution maintain theirs to be as invisible to society as possible, and amend when needed without fuss.
Populism won’t disappear, ever. What I firmly dispute is that US politics has any stronghold over the rest of the world in terms of populism. Ultimately, populism is a world problem, and was a problem well before Trump even decided to have a go at politics. Brexit largely predicted that Trump would find power before others did, and populism largely found its way into the UK back in 2008 with Cameron. In France, you could argue the NF paved the way decades ago. The point is that Trump and the US did not dictate this - if anything they’re late to the party and hold zero influence in immigration based populism.
The point still stands that no one outside of the US cares about their constitution or political system, and to say it does shows an incredible level of ignorance of world politics outside of US borders.
I’m not sure these sweeping statements are really helping your argument. Despite my “incredible level of ignorance” I am in fact not American myself, I have no particular reason to defend the USA for the sake of it, and I stick to my assertion that the stability of the US Constitution and the American social contract is unusual in world affairs - and even that this is not particularly controversial among historians and pol-sci specialists, notwithstanding your dismissiveness. Don’t agree? That’s fine, but maybe consider letting up on the contemptuous tone, it doesn’t really elevate the debate.
Very few countries in the world have had a political history as stable as the USA’s over the last couple of centuries. Take France, which since 1788 has had: an absolute monarchy, three revolutionary regimes, a constitutional monarchy, two imperial regimes, a bout of full-on fascism, and five separate republican constitutions. At most of the junctures between those things, there was suffering and bloodshed. Maybe people “don’t give a fuck about the US constitution” - it certainly looks like Americans don’t, these days - but the stability of American democratic politics is genuinely very unusual and the constitution obviously has something to do with that.
As for your take on populism in the world, I am not as nonchalant as you. Yes, the rot has been stopped in some places, for now (Brazil, Poland, partly India) but in general it is still very much on the march. India, Turkey, Philippines, Hungary (which is right inside the EU - and now Slovakia too), El Salvador, Mexico, Tunisia, etc. The Arab world is less democratic than ever. And of course China is once again going full dictatorship only a few decades after discovering what a bad idea that is with Mao. Personally I doubt that China is much influenced by US politics, but pretty much everyone else in the world is. And most of this happened quite neatly during the period following Trump’s first election. Whether it is mostly cause or correlation, the link is there.
You cannot compare newly-formed countries with those that have CENTURIES of history behind them, and their own geopolitical goals over that time. The point still stands that no one outside of the US cares about their constitution or political system, and to say it does shows an incredible level of ignorance of world politics outside of US borders. Even countries like Australia with their own constitution maintain theirs to be as invisible to society as possible, and amend when needed without fuss.
Populism won’t disappear, ever. What I firmly dispute is that US politics has any stronghold over the rest of the world in terms of populism. Ultimately, populism is a world problem, and was a problem well before Trump even decided to have a go at politics. Brexit largely predicted that Trump would find power before others did, and populism largely found its way into the UK back in 2008 with Cameron. In France, you could argue the NF paved the way decades ago. The point is that Trump and the US did not dictate this - if anything they’re late to the party and hold zero influence in immigration based populism.
I’m not sure these sweeping statements are really helping your argument. Despite my “incredible level of ignorance” I am in fact not American myself, I have no particular reason to defend the USA for the sake of it, and I stick to my assertion that the stability of the US Constitution and the American social contract is unusual in world affairs - and even that this is not particularly controversial among historians and pol-sci specialists, notwithstanding your dismissiveness. Don’t agree? That’s fine, but maybe consider letting up on the contemptuous tone, it doesn’t really elevate the debate.